ACIT, Coimbatore v. RSM Autokast Limited, Coimbatore

ITA 1643/CHNY/2013 | 2005-2006
Pronouncement Date: 24-10-2013 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 164321714 RSA 2013
Assessee PAN AABCR4344J
Bench Chennai
Appeal Number ITA 1643/CHNY/2013
Duration Of Justice 2 month(s) 10 day(s)
Appellant ACIT, Coimbatore
Respondent RSM Autokast Limited, Coimbatore
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 24-10-2013
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted C
Tribunal Order Date 24-10-2013
Assessment Year 2005-2006
Appeal Filed On 14-08-2013
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH CHENNAI. BEFORE DR.O.K. NARAYANAN VICE-PRESIDENT & SHRI V. DURGA RAO JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1643/MDS/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX COMPANY CIRCLE I(1) COIMBATORE 641 018. VS. M/S. RSM AUTOKAST LIMITED 603 C BLOCK PIONEER COMPLEX 1075 AVINASHI ROAD COIMBATORE - 18. [PAN : AABCR4344J] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI T.N. BETGERI JCIT RESPONDENT BY : SHRI A.S. SRIRAMAN ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING : 24.10.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24.10.2013 O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINS T THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) I COIMBAT ORE DATED 15.05.2013 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 2. THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS TIME BARRED BY 12 DAYS IN FILING. THE DEPARTMENT HAS FILED CONDONATION IN THE FORM OF AFFIDAVIT REQUESTING TO CONDONE THE DELAY. BY REFERRING TO TH E CONTENTS THEREIN THE LD. DR HAS REQUESTED TO CONDONE THE DELAY. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.1643 1643 1643 1643/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/13 1313 13 2 ASSESSEE HAS NOT OBJECT TO THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE L D. DR. ON PERUSAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY WE ARE SATISFIED THAT THE REVENUE WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FROM NOT FILING THE APPEAL WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME. ACCORDINGLY WE CONDONE THE DELAY OF 12 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL AND ADMIT THE SAME FOR HE ARING. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE I S ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURE OF BRAKE DRUMS FOR AUTOMOTI VE SECTOR AND HAD INSTALLED WINDMILLS FOR GENERATION OF ELECTRICITY. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN ALONG WITH DEPRECIATION STATEMENT CLAIMING DEPRECIATION ON WINDMILL AT ` . 24 96 000/- FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALLOWED THE DEPRECIATION @ 7.69% AMOUNTING TO ` .11 99 640/- AND THE EXCESS CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION O N WINDMILL OF ` .12 96 360/- WAS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSE E. 4. ON APPEAL THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) BY FOLLOWING T HE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF K.K.S.K. LEATHER PROCESSORS PRIVATE LIMITED V. ITO [2010] 126 ITD 215 DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFI CER TO ALLOW THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION UNDER RULE 5(1A) READ WITH AP PENDIX 1. 5. AGGRIEVED THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.1643 1643 1643 1643/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/13 1313 13 3 6. THE LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER. 7. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE STRONGLY RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE CHENNAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF K.K.S.K. LEATHER PROCESSORS PRIVATE LIMITED V. I TO (SUPRA) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(APPEALS)S ORDER MAY BE UPHELD. 8. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH SIDES PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE L D. CIT(APPEALS) HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD EXERCISED THE OPTION OF CLAIMING THE DEPRECIATION FOR THE WINDMILLS AT 80% UNDER RULE 5( 1A) READ WITH APPENDIX 1 THROUGH MAKING CLAIM WHILE FILING THE RE TURN OF INCOME IN TIME UNDER SECTION 139(1) ALONG WITH AUDIT REPORT A ND ALSO HELD THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY PRESCRIBED FORMAT THE CLAIM MAD E IN THE RETURN OF INCOME IS MORE THAN ENOUGH TO EXERCISE THE OPTION A S REQUIRED UNDER SECOND PROVISO TO RULE 5(1A). ACCORDINGLY WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE CHENNAI BENCH OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF K.K.S.K. LEATH ER PROCESSORS PRIVATE LIMITED V. ITO. BEFORE US THE REVENUE HAS NOT FILED ANY MATERIAL TO CONTROVERT THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ABOVE REFERRED CASE. THEREFORE WE HOLD THAT THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTL Y DIRECTED THE I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.1643 1643 1643 1643/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/13 1313 13 4 ASSESSING OFFICER TO WORK OUT ASSESSEES CLAIM OF D EPRECIATION UNDER WDV METHOD AND THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ST AND DISMISSED. 9. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF H EARING ON THURSDAY THE 24 TH OF OCTOBER 2013 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (DR. O.K. NARAYANAN) VICE-PRESIDENT (V. DURGA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI DATED THE 24.10.2013 VM/- TO: THE ASSESSEE/A.O./CIT(A)/CIT/D.R.